Recent Posts

Pages

Random Quote

As hatred is defined as intense dislike, what is wrong with inciting intense dislike of a religion, if the activities or teachings of that religion are so outrageous, irrational or abusive of human rights that they deserve to be intensely disliked?

Pulitzer Prize winning editorial cartoonist Michael Ramirez has aptly summed up the general public’s views of Obama’s nuclear weapons deal with Iran in one image and ten words.

Famous Last Words

The problem with the general public’s views of Obama’s nuclear weapons deal with Iran is it is predicated upon unproven postulates and doesn’t take into account Obama’s own personal views.

Firstly, any issue with the wisdom of Obama’s agreement with Iran over that nation’s ongoing attempt to develop nuclear weapons should never be predicated upon the hypothesis that the boy was trying to prevent such. That would be making an assumption of facts not in evidence.

Secondly, Obama has no issue extending trust to a people who call America “The Great Satan” because he, himself likely has no problems dealing with the Devil to get his way and, therefor, sees a likelihood that others will do the same.

Like this:

The interaction between adults, especially adults in titular positions of authority, and children is always interesting and often amusing.

President Obama went to a primary school to talk to the kids. After his talk he offered question time. One little boy put up his hand, and Obama asks him his name. The little boy responded that his name is Walter.

“And what is your question, Walter?” Asked Obama.

“I have four questions” Said Walter.
“First, why do you think you can negotiate a treaty with Iran without Congress?”

“Second, why did you grant amnesty to millions when you said earlier you didn’t have the authority to do so?”

“Third, why did you say that Bowe Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction” yet now he’s being charged with desertion?”

“Fourth, why was Hillary Clinton allowed to run a private email server when that clearly broke the law?”

Just then, the bell rang for recess and Obama informed the kiddies that they would continue after recess.

When they resumed, Obama said, “OK, where were we? Oh, thats right: question time. Who has a question?”

There is always a certain amount of risk in questioning authority but there is often great peril in questioning those who are unworthy of authority or who have gained or maintained it through less savory means.

Like this:

I love Mass spanking and, by that, I mean I truly love the latest ruling on spanking as a form of corporal punishment by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court somewhat less than I mean that I have any fondness for the actual act as a punishment. I have neither any fondness nor antipathy for spanking children.

In 2011 Jean Dorvil was arrested in Brockton, MA on charges of assault and Battery for spanking his child. During the trial the judge made the odd remark, “If you’re in public with your kids, it’s not appropriate to discipline in this fashion.” Dorvil then lost his appeal based on the appellate court’s view that the child lacked the capacity to understand the discipline and that the father spanked her “when he was upset and angry.”

OK, so we have one judge that thinks that spanking is wrong and constitutes assault and battery if it’s done in public and another set of judges who thinks that spanking is wrong and constitutes assault and battery if the parent is angry when they spank the child. Combined, these two judicial statements imply that spanking is legally A-OK if it’s performed in private and if the parent is neither upset nor angry. Hence, by their statements, it’s perfectly fine in the privacy of your own home to spank you child if you just enjoy doing so.

No! That’s not what the courts meant…but it is what, in the language of the law, they said. They created an arguable defense with their idiocy.

Thankfully, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overturned Dorvil’s conviction and coded that parents have the right to use corporal punishment to discipline and safeguard their children. Even better, they specifically codified that that a parent or guardian may not be subjected to criminal liability for the use of force against a minor child under the care and supervision of the parent or guardian, provided that:

the force used against the minor child is reasonable;

the force is reasonably related to the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor, including the prevention or punishment of the minor’s misconduct; and